It’s a pretty subtle distinction. Are you familiar with O Henry’s story The Gift of the Magi? It’s a really cool story… a financially-strapped husband and wife have only two possessions of value: he has an amazing pocket-watch that was handed down to him from his father and grandfather; she has awe-inspiring tresses of shiny brunette hair that cascade down to her knees.
At Christmas, both realize that they cannot possibly afford a present that would adequately express their love for the other and highlight their beloved’s most prized possession. So, what do they do? She sells her hair, and buys a chain that complements his pocket-watch perfectly. He sells his watch, and buys a set of hair-combs that she’s dreamt of constantly. Each sacrifices his prized possession for the good of the other.
In seeing the sacrifice that the other made, each realizes the depth of the love that they share. Even in the face of the sacrifice made, the loss is outweighed by the recognition of the depths of their mutual love.
That’s ‘substitutionary atonement’. That’s what it means to demonstrate love so intensely that nothing else matters in comparison.
‘Penal substitution’, on the other hand, is only a business transaction. There’s no exchange, there’s no notion of love… there’s only the idea that one possession (i.e., Christ’s life) was given up as a payment for a debt that the other (i.e., humanity) foolishly incurred.
Huge difference, don’t you think?
